I just completed a final round for a Senior PD Role and the question was: "How do you solve for problems that don't exist yet?" I thought that was really difficult. The role is to create a visionary, new product but inherently on reflecting on it I don't think problems are ever new. There are just new ways to solve them.. My answer was that I'd perform secondary research about the industry to learn of predicted problems, would anticipate that designs would need to support touchpoints around new technology, and study users needs outside of the context of the EXISTING product. How would you answer that? What other interview questions have stumped you?
They were likely asking about your approach to problem discovery, meaning how you identify problems or opportunities that haven’t been identified yet. Of course problems are everywhere, but how do you get them on the team’s radar? A lot of designers work on creating solutions to problems that have been defined for them or on refining problem statements that have already been defined.
I think this is true. I also added to my answer I would prototype and get feedback from users to uncover additional opportunities. It was a question from a PM I just thought it was really interesting!
@MIVW23 I think you should spend more time in the problem space, not trying to build prototypes to test. Observational research will help guide you in terms of problem exploration
I think the question could come down to “How are you going to help me make sure we’re going in the right direction and cover all of our bases on a project?” I think your answer sounded pretty good. It might have been even better if you also talked about how you will bring stakeholders into your approach.
By changing the employment agreement so that next Steve Jobs might be with us 10 years down the road.
Your answer seems a bit too overly reliant on UXR imo, which could be a flag that you're uncomfortable making assumptions when needed or shy away from forming a bold vision. I'd highlight that as a senior designer I've spent years sharpening my intuition, product sense and understanding of behavioral science to be able to make strong hypotheses. This is a core part of the design process even when solving problems that do exist. Then, as a next step I'd try to lean on UXR and extrapolate as much as it is reasonable to expect so. I like your thinking that no problem is a new one but the minor variations make all the difference, especially when it comes to execution.
This is the way. Just enough bullshit.
This is a good answer to the lame interview question but it’s still fundamentally relying on past research (answers to problems that do/did exist) that inform a possible direction.
Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
I've would stood up and run, I have a enough colleagues that solve problems that don't exist at my current place.
If there is not a problem, there is no solution. Design thinking fundamentally is used to identify and solve problems that exist. I think a better way for the interviewer to ask this question would be something like, “How do you make improvements to products when there are no clear identified problems?” Which is BS anyway, no product is ever going to be perfect. What they are really asking is “How will you come up with the next-big-thing for us?”
Which company
I used to admire atlassian but this seems weird
‘I love creating problems, I can make problems out of anything’?
Badly phrased question, I guess intentionally to test you - a problem that doesn’t exist is not a problem. We identify problems but they need to exist.. or we create problems (and then either we or someone else identifies them). But yeah I guess the question is how do you identify the problems relevant to the business opportunity you’re responsible for pursuing.
If a tree falls in the woods does it create a problem?
I would say there would need to be a lot of time spent revising in prototyping stage so that you can unearth these things you aren’t aware of in the context of this new type of product. Don’t want to spend too much time up front trying to guess and probably missing stuff and getting stuff wrong anyway.